A plea to Panasonic....Please read and add your name if you agree.

I would also love an AF200. But until that arrives I am quite happy with the AF100. I also own an GH3, but all its limitations (lack of XLR, ND etc) has so far stopped me from using it for anything serious.

I have access to expensive HPX3000 shoulder cameras at work which I have been using daily for years, but after I got my own AF100 i stopped using them. I just think the footage from those 30000$ cameras look really boring and bland compared to the AF100. And with the 12-35mm the AF100 is surprisingly easy to use even for ordinary run and gun news stories. Interviews and close ups in particular looks SO much better. Even colors.

Because of the bad reputation of the AF100 I was very worried about using it when I started work on a sci-fi TV-series last summer. One thing is the footage from the camera itself, but this project demanded the footage to be heavily graded and done some extensive visual FX work on. So with its very limited codec and bad reputation I was worried that the footage would totally fall apart with all the post processing. But i went for it even though it was the first thing I had done with the camera. The alternative to get shallow DOF was using one of the Canon 5D's lying around at work, but they would be impossible to use with steadicam shots because of their limited AF. And all sound had to be recorded externally. So that would have made a long hard shoot a nightmare with so few people (in reality only two persons in the team on set).

But the AF100 has been a pleasure to work with. Even after 12 hour days with it constantly on steadicam with no breaks.

In the end of the 3 month chaos I had thousands of shots I was happy with. Which says a lot about the cameras ease of use since I constantly had to do steadicam movements while at the same time controlling framing, exposure, focus, sound and lighting while no one else was monitoring it. And no time to check out how it looked after each shot. In the end only two shots was not as much in focus as I would like (very low light so almost impossible to get it in focus), and one scene was a little bit overexposed. So I would consider this camera really reliable, easy to use and a real workhorse.

Yesterday I got the chance to see the finished product on a large cinema screen (projected by a professional cinema projector). And I am very surprised how well the footage has held up and looked. Even after being heavily graded, done extensive visual FX on (its sci-fi), and converted to yet another lossy codec before being projected really huge. The only scenes I am not happy about are the ones we had to do in very little light because we had no choice. Special FX compositing on low light footage reveal the limitations of the codec. But it works, and I don't think too many in the audience really noticed the "grain" in the dark parts of the picture.

So am planning on still be working with my AF100 and will not consider anything else until an AF200 or something with similar features like ND filters, XLR, good AF, comes along.
In case anyone is interested...and don't mind a bit of norwegian...here is the trailer. The last shot with the potato special FX is one where the codec struggled with low light combined with FX.

http://vimeo.com/91523879

(remember this is not full quality video)
 
Ebrahim Saadawi said:
Of course there IS going to be an AF200. Just be patient. Panasonic has a consumer GH4 at 2K and Cinema Camera at 60K. It's certain they're not going to leave that gap open for other makers.

It will probably have the GH4 sensor, but with a better recording options, like 4:2:2 and 10bit internally. And ND filters, built in XLRs and timecode, a proper viewfinder and form factor.

It would kill the Canon cinema line for broadcast use if placed in a competitive price segment. I would bet my money that an AF200 will be out soon. And yes I would buy one, replace my C100.
Click to expand...

You must aim where ball in the game will be and not where it is now. So while waiting for your AF200, Canon, Sony and others will come with something new to the game and situation will be diferent again ;)
 
hscully said:
People see my recent work, I tell them it's the AF100 they say "great! that looks beautiful" they talk to someone, then want to use something else. I am shooting a short this week with the AF100 that almost lost out to a 7D.
Click to expand...

Yup, pretty much it. Which is annoying, because it shows the ignorance of people thinking a camera is more important than a DP. Probably one of my biggest pet peeves.
 
filmguy123 said:
.......... it shows the ignorance of people thinking a camera is more important than a DP. Probably one of my biggest pet peeves.
Click to expand...
Forgive me if it's not what you intended, but that reads a little like "as long as you've got a good DP, the camera doesn't matter".

Why does it have to be either or? Surely what's wanted is a good DP TOGETHER with the best camera for the money?

And too often on forums (well, real life too for that matter.....) things are seen as purely "good", or purely "bad" - nothing in between. Which is silly. No camera (or DP for that matter :) ) is 100% good or 100% bad.

As far as the AF100 goes, that's especially true. I've seen one set of results where in isolation it's results did indeed look very good (OK, due to a good cameraman as well), but when intercut with EX1R footage (shot by the same cameraman) it stood out as inferior. No, not "bad"..... just - not as good. (To the extent a few things got reshot.)
 
harddrive said:
Forgive me if it's not what you intended, but that reads a little like "as long as you've got a good DP, the camera doesn't matter".
...<SNIP>...
Click to expand...

I didn't read it that way.

I read it to say that the D.P. is more important than the camera -- and I agree.
 
That film looks great, trorvik!

The DP is more important than the camera, but it is important that the camera works for the style of the DP.

The great thing is that we now have multiple options at price points from phone/GoPro to Alexa. They have their strengths and weaknesses and in the right hands can do great work. The AF100's weaknesses don't matter if your personal shooting style plays to its strengths.

I must admit I never got on with my AF100. I didn't like the banding, the codec, focussing on the built-in monitor or the skin tones when I shot with it the way I like to shoot.

It is clearly a very capable camera in the hands of someone whose shooting style it suits! It just wasn't for me.

My advice to producers is to choose a DP whose style you like and let the DP make the technology choices that support their style (within budget, obviously).

Cheers, Hywel
 
It's not either or, DP or camera and the right camera for the right shoot is important. The AF100 likes to be lit which is great for me because I like to light. You have to expose it within a range that other cameras may be more forgiving in. The AF100 is a little long in the tooth now and we're all expecting more - 4K, RAW, 10bit 4:2:2. That's why we want a new one!

I'm not complaining about how cameras are chosen it's just that for some reason, beyond my understanding, the AF100 got it's butt kicked out of the gate. The FS100 didn't get that, or the FS700 or the C100. Or maybe they did but I was on the AF100 forum. I don't know. Actually I don't care. If someone wants another camera for a job I'm on, no problem.

But for my money, I'd love a new AF100 with some of the goods Panasonic is bringing to their other cameras. AF200 Yea Ya!
 
I think the "which is more important, the DP or the camera" thing is the wrong way of looking at it. The DP is a craftsman, the camera is his tool. If a craftsman is producing work you like, unless there are some sort of extenuating circumstances, the tools he uses is irrelevant so long as he creates an end product you want. No one would ever go to a carpenter and demand he uses a certain hammer or circular saw.
 
I agree with everything you said Mike.

Unfortunately producers frequently don't use such logic and reason in their decisions.
 
mcgeedigital said:
I agree with everything you said Mike.

Unfortunately producers frequently don't use such logic and reason in their decisions.
Click to expand...

Years back in my market we had what I would call buzz word wars. Agencies would read some article in say Post magazine, and then bombard the production houses with what they had gleamed from the article.... If you want our business you have to shoot with an Arri camera and Zeiss lenses, we only want to edit with an Avid, if you don't have a Flint, Inferno or Flame and cater lunch, then you don't have the account. And the production houses would jump through hoops and go into debt purchasing gear to one up the other guys and try to win the account. I actually stopped shooting when I first came to town and concentrated on audio work, because my Eclair cameras and Canon K35 lenses were not the Arri and Zeiss buzz words the agencies were familiar with so I couldn't get work. Fast forward to the now... You still have producers out there that thrive on buzz word gear, only they don't have the budget to work with said gear. The solution? Same as it ever was.... If you want our business you have to shoot with a fully rigged Arri Alexa with Optimo lens, and only charge us like you were shooting with a 7D and kit lens, oh, and we will pay you in 120 days. These are truly wonderful times in which we live now!
 
Ha David, so true. In 1999 I got a call from Sandia National Lab. They wan't to know if I could shoot in 2K, 4K and 6K. I had no idea what they were talking about. I did shoot in on my Arri 535 and let them figure out the post. After weeks of trying to find a post facility to do it they came back to me to edit in 1080p. In '99 this was difficult enough to do.
 
hscully said:
.......... it's just that for some reason, beyond my understanding, the AF100 got it's butt kicked out of the gate. The FS100 didn't get that, or the FS700 or the C100.
Click to expand...
I put a lot of that down to overhyping pre-launch, and the comment I made earlier about forums seeing things as purely "good" or purely "bad" - nothing in between.

The pre-launch hype painted the AF100 as "wow - 100% good", then disappointment set in as early results and tests showed initial hopes were unduly optimistic - and hence a big negative kickback. The fallen idol effect, if you like. If it had just been presented as what it is (a GH1/2 in a more video friendly package) right from the start, that wouldn't have happened.

And that was compounded by the FS100/C100 coming along soon after with demonstrably better IQ. That said, they were (are) far from perfect in other ways (such as lack of inbuilt ND on the FS100) - but things like that were known from day one, you knew you were getting what it said on the tin. Hence no kickback effect.

To Mike's point about craftsman and tools, then yes, in principle I agree. But I come back to what I said before about footage I saw intercut with an EX1. Leaving aside DOF factors, then whilst the AF100 didn't look bad, it didn't look up to the EX1. In which case it becomes a case of "why use that saw when the other gives a better finish?"
 
I guess because the other saw has no handle etc. etc. .... 'it's harder to use'
Folks opt out for that reason all the time!

cheers,

Tye
 
harddrive said:
I put a lot of that down to overhyping pre-launch, and the comment I made earlier about forums seeing things as purely "good" or purely "bad" - nothing in between.

The pre-launch hype painted the AF100 as "wow - 100% good", then disappointment set in as early results and tests showed initial hopes were unduly optimistic - and hence a big negative kickback. The fallen idol effect, if you like. If it had just been presented as what it is (a GH1/2 in a more video friendly package) right from the start, that wouldn't have happened.

And that was compounded by the FS100/C100 coming along soon after with demonstrably better IQ. That said, they were (are) far from perfect in other ways (such as lack of inbuilt ND on the FS100) - but things like that were known from day one, you knew you were getting what it said on the tin. Hence no kickback effect.

To Mike's point about craftsman and tools, then yes, in principle I agree. But I come back to what I said before about footage I saw intercut with an EX1. Leaving aside DOF factors, then whilst the AF100 didn't look bad, it didn't look up to the EX1. In which case it becomes a case of "why use that saw when the other gives a better finish?"
Click to expand...

I agree with you about the pre-launch hype, but I'd also chalk it up to the prevailing mentality of the time. Canon has fostered a mentality that a camera should simply look "good" out of the box, and the AF100 does not fit that bill. My experience was that I would run into DPs who hated the camera because they couldn't just turn it on and shoot with it - they actually had to do their homework by adjusting settings, and they were too lazy to do so. Unfortunately, those guys existed on the internet too, and we all know how quickly bad opinions spread online. :)

Anyway, in my area producers were stuck on the 5D for the longest time because a lot of the local DPs were in the category I talked about above, and that was the camera they trusted. If the gig pays, I'll shoot on whatever they want, but it was definitely disappointing to see the AF100 bashed so heavily when in many cases it was really a better tool for the job than a 5D would have been.

Regardless, the camera is actually having a bit of a resurgence in my area right now due in part to the hype from "The Forgotten Kingdom", so mine is enjoying a bit of increased use at the moment. :)

- Jon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top